Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

The Democrats, given legislative power, do good.

I think in general the Democrats' stated goals for their legislation are good, but their implementations tend to leave much to be desired (that is, they often don't achieve that goal).

I think part of the reason obamacare was nerfed so much was:
1. the need to get it out of committee(s) which had republicans in them who could have blocked it if their demands weren't met
2. with the thought that some republicans would sign onto the final bill if it were enough of a compromise

In the blue state I'm in, by contrast, the Democrats control everything except the governorship right now, and sometimes control the governorship too. Democrats here appear to be either Good or Lawful Stupid with delusions of Good, but not as Lawful Stupid as England's politicians.

P.S. I can't figure what weird's teddybear-metaphoring about.
Also "and use it to divide instead of unite"
I was supposed to feel divided?

[wierd]

obamacare is the teddybear. the deserving kids are people who cant afford healthcare, Mad Doll Makers Inc is the insurance industry, and the bomb is the dangerous premiums, and horrible requirements put on other people.

make more sense now?

[Shadowlord]

I have seen multiple news articles on premium increases under obamacare, but when I actually look to see how it compares to the past...

Another new report, by the Commonwealth Fund, The Slowdown in Employer Insurance Cost Growth: Why Many Workers Still Feel the Pinch, found that families spent an average of 10.1 percent ($6,422) of their income on health insurance premiums and deductibles in 2015. But there were differences among states. In Mississippi, which has the lowest median income and among the highest health insurance contribution levels, families were at risk of spending 14.7 percent of their income, on average, on health insurance costs. In Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas, families could pay 12 percent or more. Families in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts had the lowest health insurance costs as a share of income, at 6.8 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively.

...

A new analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace costs finds that, nationwide, marketplace premiums did not increase at all from 2014 to 2015, though there were substantial average premium increases in some states and declines in others. The average premiums for the second lowest-cost silver plan—or benchmark plan for calculating the federal subsidy in a given state—were also unchanged. And the average deductible for a marketplace plan increased by just 1 percent year to year.
The 0 percent change in average premiums is unprecedented when compared with historic trends in both the individual insurance market and employer-based health insurance. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, from 2008 to 2010, premiums grew an average 10 percent or more per year in state individual insurance markets. Many factors underlie this year’s stability in marketplace premiums, but three important contributors were: an increase in the number of participating insurance carriers; the design of the marketplaces; and the risk stabilization programs for participating insurers. The premiums presented are for a 40-year-old nonsmoker.  See Table 1 below.  Results are weighted to reflect the population distribution across rating regions. The data for single and family premiums are available in an interactive map.

[wierd]

to continue the metaphor,

mad doll makers inc wanted to send the bomb regardless, and used the teddybear deal to ship out said bombs.  their major goal is to blow shit up, the dolls are just a front. (eg, insurance companies are out to make money, they were going to hike rates regardless, and obamacare was a convenient vehicle. Healthcare is just the means by which they extact and extort money.)

that dos not change the facts that 1) the dnc wants to give a teddybear, and consulted a doll company, who agreed to help them make said bears. the DNC did not know about or want to have bombs sent. 2)The teddybears have bombs in them. 3) the people opposed to giving the bears (and are more in favo of sending bombs so they dont have to spend money at all) see the little horrors, and spread FUD.

the moderates want proper teddybears, dont want bombs involved at all or doll makers known for international terrorism, and wants to explain how it can be paid for and planned properly.

we get told "every moment those kids go without bears is a tradgedy!" and "You cant possibly know how to make dolls better or cheaper than Mad Doll Maker inc, and why do those kids even need bears in the first place?!"

its horrible, and less and less of us are around each day.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Where is your bomb tonight (Grand Theft Automatic Rifle)

In other words, the bomb is a lie. Insurance premiums haven't gone up significantly. It was all a Republican hoax.

[wierd]

no, the bomb is real, it was just distributed regardless of the bear.

eg, the rates did go up. the reason they went up is not caused by obamacare. Obamacare could have prevented the distribution of bombs, but it didnt. -- it could have been implemented as a big middle finger to the insurance industry, and be handled totally outside their control.

instead, everyone got bombs. that is bad.

[smjjames]

Somehow I think it works better without the metaphoring.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688

Seems like that's supposed to be satire?

Also, Russia accuses Ukraine of trying to sabotage Trump, wat..... Relations are gonna be messy methinks.

[wierd]

I used metaphor, because you can basically plug about all of the big initiatives in, and not just obamacare.

it was intended to highlight the highminded but ignorant idealism of the left, the sneering industrilist shit from the right, and how I feel trapped in the middle, trying my best to be sane.



and yes, Poes law strikes again. Happens any time you have true believers, regardless what they believe in. In this case, that climate change is a hoax, latching desperately onto any misinformed soundbyte they can to advance the belief.

you cant make a parody silly enough to distinguish it.

[uber pye]

it was intended to highlight the highminded but ignorant idealism of the left, the sneering industrilist shit from the right, and how I feel trapped in the middle, trying my best to be sane.

as a fellow moderate, I know what ya mean. The left don't know what they're doing and the right don't want to do anything.
As a wise man once told me: Choosing neutrality leaves you with two enemies, and few friends.

[Rockphed]

The fraudsters would need to know what the expected turnout would be, so the number of planted ballots won't exceed the number of state residents. They would need to divide that margin in half, in order to account for knowledge that the other side will also attempt tampering. Detection would be a disaster for both groups.

Or they could not bother, and could just control the media narrative instead.

1) I really doubt that this particular case was a sign of United Russia really throwing in additional few dozens of millions of votes - as I recall, the results were close to what the polls were predicting, so there would theoretically be no need for such massive fraud to take place.
2) USA is not a one-party state, where one party has a position which allows it to unilaterally do stuff like that.

Yet.

At least, if it were to become one, it'd be better if it was the right "one-party" (i.e. Democrats) that got to rule without competition. This could be as easy as just switching to popular vote for a Democrat POTUS and then, liberally using the Democrat's White House vast executive powers, physically squashing the remaining state's rights that allowed the Republican evil to persist until now.

Have you been to Detroit recently?  How about Chicago?  How about Flint?  All three, and many more hard-hit inner cities have been safely Democrat for the last 2 - 3 generations.  You could probably point out problems with large cities that have been reliably republican for similar time frames, but I don't think any exist.  No, you do not want a single party to hold the reigns for too long without competent competition.  Competition keeps the people in power sharp.

I hate to say it, but I am probably one of the closest things to a conservative on this forum, and I am actually a moderate. (fiscally conservative, socially liberal)

I am both socially and fiscally conservative.  I am, in fact, probably the most conservative person you will ever meet.  For the record, I despise Trump almost as much as the most strident liberals, albeit for different reasons.

And remember, not one Republican voted for Obamacare.  That, right there, is why Republicans spent so much effort trying to block everything the Democrats wanted.  Well, and in 2009 a bunch of Republican activists started an actual populist movement which made the ones run by democrats look anemic in comparison.  The wins they gave the Republicans in the house and senate filled both chambers with people who thought it their civic duty to grind the gears of government to a halt in the hopes that people would see that when the government stops, nothing else stops.  The leadership, McConnel and Boehner, were rather milquetoast in comparison.

[smjjames]

Why didn't the republicans work with the Democrats and amend it to where it was palatable rather than completely lock down?

[TheBiggerFish]

Why didn't the republicans work with the Democrats and amend it to where it was palatable rather than completely lock down?

Be... Cause... They were elected to not compromise with the EVUL DAMMERCRATS?

[Rockphed]

Why didn't the republicans work with the Democrats and amend it to where it was palatable rather than completely lock down?

Because the Democrats said "We won.  Your input is not necessary."  They had, for a little, a filibuster proof majority in the senate.  When Ted Kennedy died in office, they figured that the Democrat would win the special election, but she didn't take it seriously and lost to Scott Brown.  At that point, the Republicans expected the Democrats to come to the table and try to work out a compromise.  But no, we got "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Heh.  Looking that quote up, I just realised that there is a dependent clause that always gets left off.  Doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, just a bit of trivia.

@Ispil> Most of the things that stopped during the government shutdown were stopped by executive branch decisions, not by lack of funding.  For instance, all the memorials, which do not normally have guards, that had guards to keep people out during the shutdown.

[misko27]

That, right there, is why Republicans spent so much effort trying to block everything the Democrats wanted. 

There is no reason for blocking everything for eight goddamn years. There are causes, but I cannot imagine reasons.

[smjjames]

Sounds like the Democrats got stuck in Liberal Arsehole mode there.  :/ No surprise that they lost their majorities. I can see the reason that the Dems lost this time all the way back where Pelosi said that, as that's the same 'smug eletist' behavior that helped them cost them the election this time around.

Also, I've read that the Republicans are going to work on it piece by piece rather than one huge bill. Which is probably how it should have been done.